The online home of Appleman1234 / Benjamin Southall

Hi everyone,

Today has been interesting. Friday also was a good day, in which the QUT Tabletop Gaming Club, had our first games night in the new room allocated to us. Games of Magic, Stratego, Chess and Monopoly were played and fun was had by most, if not all.

I also managed to have the online discussion with my INB302 group members the other night, which was quite hectic, but productive.

I have been thinking more and more about recursion as a measure of proof of complexity and a partial proof for reality. We can currently create using our minds or computer , worlds other than the one we appear to exist in.

Phenomenologically these worlds exist to us, however unless communicated we can’t share or clarify there existence with others. In these worlds that we create however, we can make characters, and it perceivable that if those characters had minds, they could create worlds and characters with minds, and so on and thus forth.

You could also use this recursion to create a circular logic structure / paradox, in which your existence is phenomenological creation or observation of the character’s mind , which is the other character’s mind which is in your own.

Currently the hard AI to attempt to simulate reality with free will at an accurate level hasn’t been estabilished, we don’t even have the hard AI to have an inanimate object interface with our reality as though it was sapient and sentient, let alone the hard AI required to implement free thought, imagnation and creativity.

In between the lines of reality, hyperreality, subreality and cyberreality, does recursion of this form benefit us ? Are sophism or solipsism valid mechanisms for thought and approach. Different people interact with the same shared perception / consensus of reality in different ways generating their unique (phenomological) experiences.

Paradoxes are useful when dealing with recursion because they give it a pattern and ocassionally a breakpoint, in which it can revert to a different frame of reference.

Communication of thoughts,ideas and emotions is simple but difficult, because we make it so, in non-dimensionalising and parameterising our dialogue is such that it doesn’t isomorphically from person

A says blah, blah maps to blah2 in common for person A, blah2 in common for person B maps to qwerty. Person A says blah, blah means blah2, blah2 then gets converted back to qwerty so that Person B, understands what Person A is saying.

Person A says blah, Person B hears blah, Person B asks which blah or what do you mean by that ? Blah in what context ?

We need a language that is connationless, emotionless and is such that meaning of the message is shared between two or more unique (phenomological) people.

Ideally if we our brains all work the same way / structure, except with different associations and memories,we could have a thought based language that mapped what were thinking about to a global language value and then attempted to map that value into equivalent or  component parts of another person’s thoughts or memories.

It would work like the Babelfish from HGTG, except it would be based on brainwaves and signals. Something like this is much easier than the current system that allows the analogueness of our vocal chords,body language and an ambigious spoken / written language.

The latter attempts to emulate the isomorphic mapping but isn’t able to due to  both parties mapping their respective phenemological values to the same word and then getting upset when their communication doesn’t ensure that the message is communicated and understood.

Avoding or ignoring something doesn’t make it go away or not exist. (Mildly better strategies include blowing it up (which should reduce most objects to smaller pieces) or setting it on fire (which either makes it on fire, or turns it in smaller piecies which have been burnt)).

Avoidance doesn’t resolve a problem.  Some problems can be resolved by fire and explosions, however this does bring about certain results, intentional or otherwise due to causality.

Can we draw lines ? Are Lines real ? Is Sand real ? Is Sand anymore real that Lines ? If we avoid Lines, we draw only using dots, if we avoid sand , how do we know if it is real ? If we set sand on fire or explode sand and do a decent job of it, we should get glass , but can we set lines on fire or explode lines ?

Best wishes and have fun,

Benjamin Southall aka Appleman1234

Hi everyone,

2 weeks in. Had my great aunt’s 80th birthday party yesterday. It was quite nice. We arrived at little late which was slightly embarrasing, however the venue was simply smashing. It was a cross between woolshed, old english cafe, and a store that actually had cross generation kitzch items. The desserts were awesome, (I enjoyed a large slice of banana cheesecake), despite the fact that they were all out of waffles (They had served waffles for a party of twenty earlier that morning, .  This didn’t stop Jackie’s friend James from getting the last waffle however.)

The conversation ranged from General Monash, to changing times, to what actually constitutes as a waffle, to the deplorable current state of education (after I asked Jackie whether she had made the acquaintance of my current Advanced Calculus lecturer, who also taught teachers at Mt Gravatt Teachers College), I would have liked to talk more about the Great Wars and the current state of politics, however I didn’t get the chance.

After afternoon tea and birthday cake,  we were invited to have a look at James’ house and his wonderful handiwork and antique collection. His house is a roundhouse and it is similar amazing, from the croquet field, that he made himself, to the gardens and the rockeries, and the fabulous antiques that we didn’t see the half of. Including 2 grandfather clocks and a granddaughter clock, limited edition painted plates and various other wonders and suprises.

Having not gotten more of my studies done yesterday and I am currently at Uni fiddling with freeglut for INB381, and the google ads in my gmail inbox pointed me to an awesome embedded linux smart phone (exeda) and a micro pc (fit-pc). My dad (as he works for Telstra) regularly asks me whether I want a new phone, and if anything like the exieda makes it way down under I may just take him up on his offer, as my current phone an Alcatel OT735 has recently decided not to let me take photos. (it powers down when I attempt to take a picture or video).

Anyhow I better finish these OpenGL drawing questions and the team conflict resolution strategy reflection despite the confliction resolution model being focused on being incomplete and inadqueate and not mapping to actual reasonable courses of action in employment. On Friday we had the QUT Tabletop first Games Meetup and AGM, it was rather fun, I learnt a new canadian card game called Crazy, we played Hangman, and few others played Australian Monopoly and Magic the Gathering.  Shame that Rory didn’t show up with Chess Boards, I was looking forward to a game.

I hope you all are having as much as I am, and getting as much work done if not more

Best wishes

Benjamin Southall aka Appleman1234